The response…

“The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views.

“After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.

“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

“I’ll have some of the quiche, and that salad over there, but, no thanks, no anti-abortion or anti-contraception, please. Just put the quiche and salad on my tray and I’ll go to the cafeteria checkout, thanks.”

Does the Speaker really want to have this conversation in public? She’s been offered quiet, and pastoral assistance in understanding the Church’s teaching. Does she really feel that it is in her interest to hold this debate in public? I struggle with pride sometimes, but I don’t think I’ve ever considered challenging our bishops to a public theological/canon law duel!

Oh, I wouldn’t be surprised if Pelosi didn’t have a crew of Catholic theologians or those with an academic Catholic aura behind her ready to speak out – perhaps her buddy, the prez of USF or Lisa Sowle Cahill or some of the names on the “Catholic Advisory Council” for Obama. I predict we will be hearing from them soon, if this doesn’t die down.

As a Catholic who struggles often with my faith, it is here that I look to the Church to take a stand. SHOW me that you mean what you say. Please. Stop being so nice and so political. Be A Church. Come out and Educate. Come out and Act and mean what you say.

I’m sorry, but if she doesn’t think that life begins at conception she is an idiot and shouldn’t hold public office because she is incompetent. The truth is, she is a liar. She knows that life begins at conception and that she supports, for whatever reason, a legal regime that allows the destruction of a certain class of human beings. Now, there is a view that being a human being does not necessarily mean that you have a right to life, but that is not christian.

Now the bishops have a clear choice. She has thrown down the gauntlet. This is an arrogant, direct slap in their faces. If they do not move to discipline her, she wins.

I know they would like to finesse this by insisting that she should voluntarily abstain from Communion, I know that they fear a media backlash with them becoming the villains if her bishop were to excommunicate her. I understand all that.

But this is an act of deliberate escalation, a deliberate provocation, a bluffingly arrogant spitting in their faces because she is confident the media have her back on this.

If the bishops fold on this, if her bishops fails to hold her accountable, they have given away the store, squandered any hope of regaining any authority.

This is a krisis moment, a moment of decision not unlike the run-up to World War II when Hitler tested the resolve of the West and Chamberlain capitulated.

It did not eliminate the necessity of fighting a costly war, it only delayed that necessity and made the fight all the more bloody.

Until now, I cut the bishops some slack, hoping that the sharp scolding from Chaput, Egan,Wuerl etc. might be enough.

But now it seems like the ball is in Niederauer’s court. She has poke her thumb in his eye, calculatingly, arrogantly, banking on timid appeasement.

Sadly, I am not optimistic that Niederauer will rise to the challenge. It’s a sad day, because the statements by Egan, Chaput et alii gave me some cause for hope.

Surprise me, Archbishop Niederauer, surprise me. We need to beg God for the grace, for once, of courage on the part of our bishops, particularly the archibishop of San Francisco.

The Augustine quote does not say abortion is OK. It just says it does not pertain to homocide. That is precisely the distinction the bishops told her she was confused about. So she simply repeats the quote that the church has just explained does not say what she needs it to say. Not what you call a teachable spirit.

She says “many Catholics do not ascribe to that view.” How many publically argue that Roe v Wade is a good thing? It is one thing to lack the faith to believe the church is right. It is another to publically dispute the church’s position.

Perhaps more significant than her endorsement of abortion and contraception, is Ms. Pelosi’s outright rejection of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church. She really believes that if she can get enough people to agree with her she can ignore Church teaching. She also expressed surprise that her granddaughter bought into the idea of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In any case, several bishops have said her advocacy of abortion makes her ineligible to receive Communion. This leaves me with the question of why does she still want to call herself Catholic? She could be an Episcopalian and there would be no controversy. Of course then she wouldn’t have those Catholic grandma credentials to wave around when it is politically expedient.

As Randy said, she simply quoted the line from St. Augustine that the Bishops just explained to her publically – i.e that it doesn’t support her position.

She is either a very dim bulb or is very arrogant and realizes that many will still read her quote in a vaccuum where it appears reasonable. It is hard to believe the former explanation since she appears reasonably bright. The latter explanation does cry out for a more serious reaction by local bishop.

Now I’m confused. I thought it was the Church that was supposedly still living in ancient times, not the politicians. Time to catch up with some of the scientific developments Nancy. Seen any ultrasounds lately?

Why start off the statement by mentioning that she has 5 children? That is a fact that does not excuse but rather inculpates. OK, so she has children who she loves and values and would not have ever killed in the womb. Shouldn’t she be working for a society where all mothers treat their children likewise? How is the fact that she has children that she didn’t kill supposed to make us feel better about enabling other mothers to kill their children in the womb?

“Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”

Bravo!

P.S. Nona Pelosi only knows about 7 nipote di nonni – on what does she base her certainty? Parental notification is now an ancient quaint notion. Family means whatever the pro-choice adult in a crisis pregnancy scenario wants it to mean – if a putative paternal grandparent is loath to incorporate this generational shift into their narcisstic worldview, then his or her quadroon in utero will be annihalated faster than a Botox shot can erase the worry lines, and the maternal grandparent will be none the wiser why their daughter is now literally “damaged goods” facing a lifetime of lesser or greater gynaecological, obstetric and psychological complications without any recourse to the law of medical malpractice.

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view.” To my view, one who says he/she is Catholic and does not ascrible to “that view” (i.e, the Magisterium) is not a Catholic! I am sick to death of people saying they are Catholic and yet “do not ascribe” to the teachings of the Church. Either you are Catholic or you are not; either you ascribe to the teachings of the Church or you do not. Pelosi is unrepentant here, and doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the public, but speaks through a spokesman. I don’t care if Pelosi has 10 children and 40 grandchildren – what does that have to do with being a good Catholic? It is not hearers of the Word but doers who inherit the Kingdom.
Pelosi, like all others who wish only to justify their position, snipped out a “prooftext” from Augustine to give her a loophole. It is not one sentence from one saint that makes up the Magisterium. And as one other person has commented so far, it is apparent that she did not consult with a priest, bishop, theologian, or anyone, but struck out on her own. That is not the way to go unless you have already decided that you oppose the teachings of the Church.
-Fr. Ron Hatton

She clearly intends to continue battling with all her might against the Church’s teaching. If the bishops capitulate on this, whether to Democrat or Republican pols, and go on allowing these people to receive Communion, Rome itself must step in…

It would be really ironic if her attitude towards the Church caused millions of Catholics, who otherwise might have sat out the election in disgust at both parties, to hold their noses and vote for McCain just to spite the Democrats.

So she’s a good Catholic because she has a big family She “appreciates the sanctity of family”….she’s got that part down all right…..she’s a expert on that…she’s a credible Catholic…she’s open to life…. but what about the sanctity of human life?….a subject on which she’s seems to have set herself up as an expert. Family is not sanctified if it only means the ones who made it past the mother’s right to choose.

St. Augustine’s opinion on ensoulment, which was one among many, is used by Speaker Pelosi to justify abortion. Sounds like an argument straight from Francis Kessling. Perhaps Archbishop Niederauer can ask Madame Speaker which of early Church Fathers used the ensoulment question to justify abortion. (Answer: None). But such are the lenghts that people will go to justify and defend the indefencible.

If Speaker Pelosi wants to continue to support abortion that is up to her and the voters in San Fransico. But she can no longer claim that Catholic teaching some how justifies her position. Thank you to Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Conley for teaching to this moment. May other bishops follow their lead. And thank you to Tom Brokaw for having the courage to ask Speaker Pelosi how she can be a Catholic and pro-abortion.

Hopefully this is a further sign that the “personally opposed to but vote in favor” of abortion claim by Catholic politicans such as Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Guilioni, et. al., is a dog that just wont hunt any more.

Interesting how Nancy cites the authority of a Fourth Century saint on the subject of when life begins. Before there were ultra-sounds, or x-rays, or incubators, or amniocentesis, or electron microscopes. Interesting how for Nancy, there’s been no scientific progress in the understanding of human biology for the past 1,600 years. What a crock of San Francisco sewage.

Wow, this is insane. So she thinks that reducing one intrinsically sinful act (abortion) by encouraging another (contraception) makes things okay? Did she never get taught that two wrongs don’t make a right?

I think Pelosi really stepped in it with this one. It’s one thing to try to doubletalk your way out of a question with no answer (“how can you be Catholic and pro-abortion?”) but it’s entirely another to throw down when you’re called on it.

To tell the truth, I was rather pleasantly surprised that the bishops went as far to react to this en mass. I’ll be very interested to see what the result of this latest action by Speaker Pelosi ends up being.

I wonder how this passage from the Augustine’s Confessions would go over with Speaker Pelosi’s constituency?:

(3.8.15)
“Can it at any time or place be unjust to love God with all his
heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbour as himself? Therefore are those foul offences which be against nature, to be every where and at all times detested and punished; such as were those of the men of Sodom: which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is Author, is polluted by perversity of lust.”

2. Is she suggesting a thought by St. Augustine (I’d like to see that quote in context, considering that St. Augustine died in 430) has equal or greater authority than definitive teachings by the Bishops acting in accord with the Pope down through the ages?

According to the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco: “Archbishop George Niederauer will address recent comments by Pelosi in a column in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco, archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy said. “

At the time St. Augustine wrote, there was not yet a clear concept of the division of “canon law” and “civil law.” Though I don’t have the Latin text handy, I think it’s safe to say that Augustine was speaking of “the law” in the sense of the overarching science of law – what some might today call natural law.

St. Augustine’s teaching has a certain amount of weight considering his stature as one of the premier Latin Doctors of the Church, yet he alone is not the magisterium. This one statement, taken alone, does not have the weight of a definitive teaching.

I seem to recall Senator Joe Biden making the same argument as Speaker Pelosi when he was interviewed on C-Span when his book came out and/or he was campaigning last year.

Do you think they pass obscure obfuscating quotes around to each other or get helpful talking points from their friends at NARAL or elsewhere? Funny that they would both have seized on and be clinging to an irrelevancy they are very unlikely to have stumbled upon on their own.

Yes, Marianne, Biden made the same evasions as Pelosi, though he cited Aquinas rather than Augustine. Biden correctly pointed out that there was debate over ensoulment. But he failed to point out that there is no longer a debate. Just as there was debate over what books belonged in the New Testament (solved: 4th century), and just as there was debate over the two natures of Christ (solved: Chalcedon), and just as there was a debate over the deity of Christ (solved: Nicea), and just as there was a debate over Pelagianism (solved: Orange), there was at one time a debate over ensoulment. But there’s never been a debate about the moral wrongness of abortion, before and after ensoulment.

Having said all that, and based on their reasoning, Pelosi and Biden could remain “good” Catholics and be Arians (or Nestorians, since you can’t be both), Pelagians, and pick and choose what books they want in the New Testament.

We know a lot of things that Augustine didn’t know about what fetuses feel and sense. What he couldn’t see, we can see today with modern technology. If he could have seen the same he wouldn’t have said what he said.

What Augustine stated in ignorance, Nancy Pelosi keeps repeating even though she knows the truth that babies in the womb also have feelings, and experience pain.

“‘It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacles to the reception of the sacraments,” the Pope said, using the term for the church’s teaching authority. ”This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.”’

Pope John Paul II, September 1987, Los Angeles, speaking to American bishops.

Mr. Dick, if we were discussing a politician claiming to be pro-choice on the issue of slavery, or better yet, gassing Jews, I don’t think you’d have the audacity to suggest we accept that as an “honest differing opinion…”, nor that condemning such views would be “vilifying” anyone…

Nobody disputes that Speaker Pelosi is sincere in her disagreement with the Church. That is not the question. The question is whether she can publicly disagree with the Church’s moral theology and still remain a Catholic in good standing. Imagine she were a chemist and denied the periodic table, and she did so honestly and with great sincerity. Why would it be wrong for the American Chemical Society (if there is such a group) to issue a judgment that states that Speaker Pelosi’s view on the periodic table is mistaken and she no longer should call herself a chemist in good standing?

Here’s another example: suppose that Speaker Pelosi became convinced that racism was justified and that our laws ought to reflect that understanding. Would the Church be within its authority to publicly condemn her views, or should it recognize this as an honest differing of opinion?

Unless you believe that theology is merely a matter of opinion–no different than matters of taste and preference–it seems that the Church and its bishops have a duty to exercise their authority on the issue of abortion consistent with what the Church understands to be true.

Note how both she and Biden say they came to be pro-choice after “studying the issue”, as if the official “bright” position is pro-abort. (Biden said he was pro-life in the beginning but he was “I was 29 years old when I came to the US Senate, and I have learned a lot.”) The talking point must be that you have to be dumb to be pro-life, despite evidence that Pelosi’s study was woefully lacking.

Exactly.
Pelosi should understand this, as a lawmaker: her deciding for herself what the teaching of the Catholic Church is would be like me deciding for myself what laws enacted by Congress I should follow and how they should be interpreted.

When I read Mr. Dick’s comment that Ms. Pelosi has a
“thinking woman’s faith” I thought he was being cleverly ironic.
I assumed, at first, that he was referring to the ability of
the intellect harnessed to a rebellious spirit to spin endless
rationalizations in support of the errant position. I don’t think
refusing to see the sanctity of life and the murder of the unborn
for what it is, is an “honest differing of opinion” at all.

And who is “vilifying”? Are we offended
Catholics supposed to roll over on the floor like submissive
dogs with four feet aloft in the air?

The autarchic nature of pride-which creates a world unto itself – will be almost impossible to resist. …………….. The devil will do anything in his power to steer us wrongly in this regard. On recognizable way the devil uses to erode legitimate authority is to make us question a person’s character, behavior, or ability. As far as the person is concerned, they are below par intellectually and hopelessly out of touch with the times. People transfer their allegiance, so to speak, from divinely appointed authority to their own human wisdom. “Words of Wisdom for Our World.”

I don’t know the rules about linking to other sites, but here is an on-point rebuttal/explanation to Ms. Pelosi’s spokeman’s citation of St. Augustine. This is definitely becoming a learning moment for Catholics, I hope.

What Biden, Pelosi and others have learned is that if they want to rise to the top in the current Democratic party, they have to fully imbrace the pro-abortion position. This rigid orthodoxy has been imposed on the party by NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood for decades. No high ranking Democratic leader dare not risk excommunication from what Fr. John Kavanaugh calls the “church of NARAL”.

As a result, we get lame answers, likes Pelosi’s and Obama’s, as to when life begins or when do infants have human rights. One does not have to be a theologian, or for that matter a practicing Catholic, to see the weakness of their arguments.

Pelosi reminds me of one of the issues facing the Church today (American and otherwise).

While we have a few “real” bishops, priests, etc who stand for the Catholic value system, there are plenty others who would be happy to delegate even the simplest instruction to the laity.

From the teaching on the Eucharist to human life, more and more, Catholic parishes and schools are left to be instructed by lay people who MAY have gotten a pamphlet to read or attended a Diocesan workshop sponsored by Loyola University back in 1983 and have used such thinking and teaching to guide the course of the parish.

We even have bishops who are more interested in inclusive roles for the laity than raising up priests who will govern, teach and sanctify. Priests are rather urged to manage, placate and silently fade away.

No wonder Pelosi happens. She’s no different from most Catholics who possess that all important gift: “THE OPINION”.

And for those who want an idea of how the ancients depicted the preciousness of “soul” look no further than the Begram plaster medallion of Eros and Psyche unearthed after being locked in a Bactrian merchant’s warehouse for 2,000 years currently on show in the National Geographic AFGHANISTAN: National Treasures from the National Museum Kabul

I wonder why some are saying because Nancy Pelosi is pro-choice she is going against Catholic teachings so she can’t call herself a Catholic. I am a recovering Catholic myself and it’s well known that most Catholics don’t follow the Pope’s instructions. Hell, a lot of Catholic teachings don’t follow the Bible…

It seems to me that in the biological process of human gestation where more than 25% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortions that to insist that a fertilized egg has the same standing as a newborn infant and that the termination of any pregnancy in the first trimester is tantamount to murder is anti-intellectual and possibly disingenuous.

I also regret that the Church and Christians insist on claiming to know the mind of Christ in partisan political debate – i.e. Catholics for McCain or Catholics for Obama or Catholics against Joe Biden.

At the end of the day I think we need a little more humility and a lot more listening in this debate

I’ve heard Mr. Dick’s argument from someone else, and the logic you just offered seems so obvious it mystifies me that anyone would bother trying to make it.

It is as absurd as what they say now when a child in the womb is found to have a life-threatening condition — this child is so ill that s/he is going to die, so let’s remove the problem by killing him or her… ??? And that is called a “therapeutic abortion”. Who exactly is receiving the therapy???

Heck, let’s just kill everyone right now since we’re all going to die, anyway.

I shudder when people start using the word “standing”, which the dictionary defines as “rank”. If we are going to decide that there are some human beings who lack standing and that they can be put to death for that reason, then what are we going to base it on, and who is going to decide what rank we each have?

A “fertilized egg” is an unfortunate choice of words. First off, it is being used to dehumanize (what do you call a newborn child; a baby — or a neonate?) It is also woefully imprecise. Are we talking about a fertilized chicken egg, a canine egg… a feline egg? … or a human ovum?

The word “human” is an adjective, not a noun. The being in the womb is a human being. I would be surprised if you would tolerate the idea of aborting a canine “fetus”; however, you are defending aborting a human one.

As for humility and listening, would you be willing to demonstrate? ;)

From a moral perspective, both failure of the zygote to implant and miscarriage are vastly different to procured abortion, which requires the choice and action of an agent with will and conscience. In either case, both failure to implant and miscarriage neither confirm nor deny the humanity of the zygote/fetus.

Suppose that only .5% of all first term embryos were miscarried? Would you then become prolife? If yes, then your position depends on an irrelevant factor of a being’s nature: its mortality. If I live one minute or 100 years, I am the same entity. But if you say “no,” that your mind wouldn’t change, then why bring up the argument at all? It is not germane to your case.

As Ellen pointed out (and beat me to it!), the mortality rate is 100% for every single conceptus. Eventually, every conceptus dies.

MJ:
“Nobody is pro-abortion and does not exist”? I counter with “All your base are belong to us”.

Actually, there must be some pro-abortion people out there. Those who train abortionists and those who procure them are probably “pro-abortion”. Those who recommend abortion as an option to pregnancy are de facto “pro-abortion”. Those who choose to have an abortion above other options are “pro-abortion”.

As far as pro-choice is concerned, being pro-choice, outside of the special, secret code, isn’t anti-Catholic but believing that there should be a viable choice offered by the state to exterminate an innocent human life does go against the faith.

Abortion…(not birth control yet)… does not permit of “thinking” anymore after 1995 when its condemnation was raised from the ordinary magisterium to the “universal ordinary magisterium” in an infallible statement by John Paul II which would pass muster under canon 749-3 which requires manifest clarity for an issue to be deemed infallible in an ecclesiastical court.

The condemnation of the act of abortion…unlike birth control and torture and slavery…… is no longer simply the “ordinary magisterium” which does permit of studious, prayerful and counseled dissent on those other issues….(not angry only or flippant dissent.)

Abortion is now not simply the ordinary magisterium but it is the “universal ordinary magisterium” which does not brook dissent at all….studious or otherwise…. and here is the moment in the 1995 encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” whereby John Paul raises the authority level by having polled all the Bishops worldwide prior to the encyclical (which is his infalliible alternative to doing an ex cathedra encyclical without consulting them):

” Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.73″

The words that are italicized go from “I declare” to the “grave moral disorder” which may mean that those only are infallible when theologians are parsing the statement since it seems to be in all copies printed.
Does it include the case of the pill and the preventing of implantation…the conflation that is brewing here in the combox?
It does not since John Paul used the word “abortion” which does not include the other concept to the majority of readers and he could have phrased it with that caveat about the pill and the preimplantation stage which he did not….. perhaps thinking that the worldwide Bishops would not have agreed that the science is all in on that area due to discussions in e.g. theological periodicals on the 14 days til twinning in the case of identical twins brought up by Bernard Haring inter alia in Theological Studies some years back but after Humanae Vitae.

So we’d do well to drop the birth control conflation with this topic since we began talking about abortion which for 99%+ human beings means the surgical procedure called abortion.

Theologians who debate contraception in theological periodicals can do so and have done so since Humanae Vitae to the knowledge of Rome…particularly in the above mentioned periodical. But after 1995 and the above raising of abortion to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and infallible level, a theologian dissenting on abortion could face excommunication on heresy charges since this is no longer in simply the ordinary magisterium but is now universal. It is the prudential judgement of Rome as to whether they will prosecute on it right now.

Theologians can still debate the preimplantation matter which is in the ordinary magisterium but has not yet been raised as abortion has to the universal ordinary magisterium as John Paul did to the abortion issue above and may have tried to on the pill issue also but did not attain the quorum needed of Bishops if he did in the same polling….he did have the alternative of doing an ex cathedra encyclical on that other matter but neither he nor any Pope has done so.

Abortion to the normal reader is about the surgical procedure and that surgical procedure is now condemned infallibly and that area does not permit of thinking further on it just as people do not think further on whether Mary was preserved from original sin though before the 19th century encyclical, they were free to think on it…..after the encyclical of the mid 19th century, they are not free to think about it and remain Catholic.

What I want to know is whether Senator Pelosi really expects us to think that she formed her views on these matters after reading Augustine’s Quaestiones in Heptateuchum? I mean, it’s not like her people cited that she might have conceivably read, like the Confessions or The City of God, but the freakin’ Quaestiones in Heptateuchum.

I don’t agree with pro choice. I however, have come to learn that everyone has their own beliefs and no one can force their beliefs on someone else, not even the catholic church. Maybe what should happen is that there should be stricter guidlines on reasons for getting abortions. Abortions of convenience are ridiculous and happen way too often. Maybe if it wasn’t so easily obtained, especially by kids without consent of parents, people would think more rationally before they have unsafe and unprotected sex.
Just my humble opinion.

You’re suggesting that, say, a rapist shouldn’t have to endure others forcing the belief on him that rape is wrong and that there should just be strict guidelines written to regulate the reasons for choosing to rape someone?

Your humility is admirable. Being related to physicians, however, I have seen first-hand how the exceptions swallow the rule, as any reason, however unrelated to health or any other reality, can be fabricated to “fill in the form.” When the signature is followed by “M.D.” there’s not much one can do to argue against the fabrication.

The plain fact is that the message that will get across is that the Catholic Church is confused on this issue, whereas the reality is that the Catholic Church has not wavered on the fundamental evil character of abortion from the moment of conception for nearly 2000 years, whenever ensoulment might or might not have been conjectured to take place.

Eleanor Smeal is a big big name in the abortion business. She has been a constant advocate for women’s “reproductive rights” as longtime President of NOW (when it became all about abortion all the time)
and as President and founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which funds candidates. She was ubiquitous in the ’80s & 90s. She also had something important to do with the legislation that makes it difficult to witness for life at clinic entrances.